948 N.W.2d 4
N.D.2020Background
- Travisia Jonette Minor (aka Travisia Martin) filed as the Democratic-NPL candidate for North Dakota Insurance Commissioner in April 2020 and certified she met eligibility requirements.
- The North Dakota Republican Party alleged Martin was ineligible because she voted in Nevada in November 2016, meaning she would not have been a North Dakota resident for the five years preceding the November 3, 2020 election.
- Secretary of State Alvin Jaeger declined to remove Martin from the ballot, asserting he could only remove a candidate who declined nomination or if ordered by a court.
- Berg petitioned the North Dakota Supreme Court for a writ directing Jaeger to remove Martin; the Supreme Court sent the disputed factual question of Martin’s residency to the district court for an evidentiary hearing.
- The district court found Martin did not have the union of act and intent to change domicile from Nevada to North Dakota before November 8, 2016 (noting her Nevada voting, ID, vehicle, medical care, and property rental), and concluded she was not a North Dakota resident for the five-year period required.
- The Supreme Court gave appreciable weight to the district court’s findings, upheld the constitutionality of the five-year residency requirement, and issued an injunction preventing Jaeger from placing Martin’s name on the November 3, 2020 general-election ballot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Martin met the 5-year residency requirement for executive office eligibility | Berg: Martin voted in Nevada in 2016 and thus was not a ND resident for five years prior to the 2020 election | Martin: She physically lived in ND since 2015, provided affidavits and letters; voting elsewhere is not dispositive of residency | District court findings adopted; Martin was not a ND resident until after Nov. 2016 and thus ineligible |
| Whether the five-year residency requirement violates Equal Protection | Martin: The requirement unduly limits voters’ choices and burdens new residents seeking office | State: Residency requirements serve legitimate/compelling state interests (familiarity with constituency); precedent upholds such requirements | Requirement upheld; does not violate Equal Protection |
| Whether Secretary of State must remove an ineligible candidate under N.D.C.C. § 16.1-08-01 | Berg: Statute requires Secretary to investigate and correct ballot errors and remove ineligible candidate | Jaeger: Lacks authority to remove a candidate except when nominee refuses or by court order | Court ordered injunction directing Jaeger not to place Martin on ballot (court-ordered removal) |
| Appropriate remedy: mandamus vs. injunction | Berg sought mandamus compelling removal | Jaeger had discretionary/ministerial arguments about authority; prior practice and statute permit court-ordered correction | Court issued a writ of injunction (correlative to mandamus) enjoining placement of Martin on ballot |
Key Cases Cited
- Riemers v. Jaeger, 916 N.W.2d 113 (N.D. 2018) (original-jurisdiction writs are discretionary; public interest in candidate eligibility)
- State ex rel. Sathre v. Moodie, 258 N.W. 558 (N.D. 1935) (definition and evidentiary weight of legal residence; intent consequences)
- Dietz v. City of Medora, 333 N.W.2d 702 (N.D. 1983) (legal residence is factual question; factors for domicile change)
- Petition of Teigen, 221 N.W.2d 94 (N.D. 1974) (court may enjoin Secretary from placing an ineligible candidate on the ballot)
- Hankins v. State of Hawaii, 639 F. Supp. 1552 (D. Haw. 1986) (upholding five-year residency requirement for governor)
- Sununu v. Stark, 383 F. Supp. 1287 (D.N.H. 1974) (upholding seven-year residency requirement for state senate)